If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'll tell you what scares me about the whole mental health thing...if legislation is not written correctly then we are putting our right to bear arms solely in the hands of psychologists. If written incorrectly, they could say that you have to prove your mental competence to buy a gun or ammo. That is straight up bull ****! They could then just say no one us computer and effectively circumvent the constitution which equals tyranny!

However, I have very little problem with doctors being able to "flag" individuals who are unfit. That flag should have very strict parameters and should be nearly as rare as forcibly committing someone. This flag should only pertain to weapon purchases and not ammo add I fell that is way too intrusive.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

how about a 6 year old who is physically trying to stab other kids with a straw?

"I didn't feel like we had to score," Tannehill said. "I had the mindset we were going to score."

I'll tell you what scares me about the whole mental health thing...if legislation is not written correctly then we are putting our right to bear arms solely in the hands of psychologists.

This is a legitimate concern, imo. How can we square some of what's being proposed with doctor/patient confidentiality? How can a person be forced to provide evidence against themselves in the form of a psychological exam or other such test?

This is a legitimate concern, imo. How can we square some of what's being proposed with doctor/patient confidentiality? How can a person be forced to provide evidence against themselves in the form of a psychological exam or other such test?

I think at an early age, with the proper studys and exams we can better identify high risk people. almost all of the recent school shootings had a guy who was the quiet guy in the back of the room who was bullied more often than not. first, we have to fix the bully issue, but if we know someone has been bullied, then perhaps we need to talk with them and not write it off as... "well bullies happen, you'll get over it." sometimes people do not get over it.

I'll tell you what scares me about the whole mental health thing...if legislation is not written correctly then we are putting our right to bear arms solely in the hands of psychologists. If written incorrectly, they could say that you have to prove your mental competence to buy a gun or ammo. That is straight up bull ****! They could then just say no one us computer and effectively circumvent the constitution which equals tyranny!

However, I have very little problem with doctors being able to "flag" individuals who are unfit. That flag should have very strict parameters and should be nearly as rare as forcibly committing someone. This flag should only pertain to weapon purchases and not ammo add I fell that is way too intrusive.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. A lot of the stuff is intetionally vague for that reason. One thing to look at on the mental health front is that legislation has been proposed in the past to declare all veterans mentally unfit to own firearms.

The White House released details on the 23 executive actions that Obama signed this afternoon. They include:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health

In the case of #8 I'm not sure what this means? Is there a standard for money safes? I guess to me this is a consumer based problem and not a government need, if they want to implement a standard such a mil-spec and place a tag on the device that says it does or doesn't meet the spec. that's fine but I wouldn't waste a lot of time with it beyond that.

Point 14 is OK as long as the CDC is objective and not shoehorned into studies that only look at what the government wants them to look at, any and all results from this need to be independently verified through whatever source is available.

Point 16 is completely troubling to me, what does the doctor do with the information if you tell him since the doctor is bound through doctor patient confidentiality, so you have given him permission to ask a question that he is not allowed to talk about? I'm not sure what the intent of this order is unless they want to make the Doc a snitch. This order is more troubling than any other order on the list to me, since it puts a person in a moral bind, you have already implemented a background check that should include prior mental health records, why does the doctor need anymore input on the subject beyond treatment?